Evolution

[Resurrexi]

There's also the problem that if man evolved from irrational animals, death would have already entered into the world, while in fact death could not have existed until after the fall.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1615628' date='Aug 2 2008, 02:58 AM']There's also the problem that if man evolved from irrational animals, death would have already entered into the world, while in fact death could not have existed until after the fall.[/quote]

Did all death enter the world, or only man's death? Did pre-fall humans eat meat, or did their need for sustinence come because of the fall? I think that only man's death entered the world because of the fall, we were the lords of creation and were to use the Earth's resources from the beginning, which implies the death of something, even if it is only plants.

I'm not trying to argue with you, your post just made me start thinking. It's nice to see you up late again.


POST NUMBER 2,000!!! YAY!

Edited August 2, 2008 by aalpha1989

[Resurrexi]

You're right. I just looked it up in my dogmatic theology book. The donum immortalitatis (gift of immortality) was only conferred on man, not on the rest of creation. Just thinking logically, if it were, that would mean that not only animals, but plants also would never die, which hardly seems plausible.

[Farsight one]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1615627' date='Aug 2 2008, 02:55 AM']Micro-evolution is compatible with Church teaching. Macro-evolution is not, as long as by macro-evolution you are referring to the idea that man evolved from some "lower" primate. The Church teaches that man had the dignity of man from the beginning of his existence.[/quote] Wait...I don't follow your logic here. If man had the dignity of man from the beginning of his existence, how does that mean we couldn't have evolved from apes (or more accurately, an ancestor we share with apes)? The apes don't have to have had the same dignity. Couldn't it have "appeared" when we did?

[quote]Man was always the Lord of Creation, and Genesis teaches that God created man in His image. C.S. Lewis also argues (I forget whether its in Mere Christianity or Miracles; I think it is in Miracles) that order cannot come from chaos.[/quote]He may argue for it, but order comes from what seems to be chaos all the time.

[quote]Our reason did not evolve into reason from animal instincts, because it is impossible for that lower form of reasoning (instincts) could evolve into higher reasoning (morality, etc.).[/quote] I don't know about that one. Chimps are starting to learn how to count, apes express emotion through sign language.

[Servant of the Secret Fire]

I say that evolution is compatible with Church teaching.

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1615627' date='Aug 2 2008, 08:55 AM']Micro-evolution is compatible with Church teaching. Macro-evolution is not, as long as by macro-evolution you are referring to the idea that man evolved from some "lower" primate. The Church teaches that man had the dignity of man from the beginning of his existence. Man was always the Lord of Creation, and Genesis teaches that God created man in His image. C.S. Lewis also argues (I forget whether its in Mere Christianity or Miracles; I think it is in Miracles) that order cannot come from chaos. Our reason did not evolve into reason from animal instincts, because it is impossible for that lower form of reasoning (instincts) could evolve into higher reasoning (morality, etc.).[/quote]

I fail to see why this is an argument against macro-evolution. Certainly man had the dignity of man from the beginning of his existence - but surely that starts with the evolutionary step that was utterly different from all that had gone before - ie God's infusion of a soul - the creation of His image within Creation. Genesis says that man was created from the dust of the earth, but I don't see why there might not have been some intermediate steps that were omitted from Genesis. (Lol - I guess that has some bearing on the comment about primordial ooze .... but anyway.)

So long as we recognise that there is an inherent difference between man and animals that must have started at some point then I don't think there is a problem with us evolving from lower primates. (I make no comment on the scientific evidence for macro-evolution, I don't know enough biology so I give biologists the benefit of the doubt since most do seem to think it a serious possibility. I would say that I therefore agree with Farsight One's reasoning in his/her first post in this thread. [b]Edit:[/b] and it seems we wrote very similar posts at the same time.)

I try to avoid speaking of God intervening in evolution to infuse the soul into man, because since God holds all creation in being I think it is misleading to think of Him being anything other than intimately involved in all the stages of creation, evolutionary or otherwise. Rather I think it is better to acknowledge the fundamental difference between the infusion of the soul and all other steps.

Edited August 2, 2008 by Servant of the Secret Fire

[Selah]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1615563' date='Aug 2 2008, 12:35 AM']Yep. There is a painting in the city hall here called Genesis, that shows a primitive man walking across the savanna in the distance, and the clouds above him remind me of the ones in Michelangelo's painting in the Sistine Chapel. That is exactly how I visualize it. One man, becoming self aware, having God reach out and give him a soul. Then the Father selected an Eve for him. Geneticists have traced the human race back to one Eve at a time when humans were just about wiped out.

I think the "7 days of creation" was like the 7 days of visions given to Joseph. The ancient scribe was given a revelation of God's creation over 7 nights, and he interpreted them to mean that God created everything in 7 days, and did the best he could to take something incomprehensible and put it on paper. I would never presume to tell God how long a day to him should be.[/quote]

That's a really interesting theory, Catherine. Thanks for sharing

[mortify]

The origin of man is a supernatural mystery, we came about by a direct intervention of God, not by some theorized process of chance changes that ultimately led to a complex being. Science has a great deal of use but when it comes to the ultimate origin of man it's as useless as trying to understand the origin of the Incarnate Son of God. We don't discount the Incarnation simply because "all life comes from life" and the idea of a Virgin Birth is scientifically impossible. Likewise, we should give the Genesis Account more credence, especially since it's the inspired word of God.

[Galloglasses]

Before this debate goes between Creationism and Evolution, let me point out that The Church DOES NOT have a Dogma on Creation, not for the past 1500 years, instead it has Three:

"Evolution is not a fact, but a set of theories. Some of the theories are very compelling, such as fossil records and observed micro evolution within species, while many aspects of evolutionary theory have been proved wrong by science itself. The irreducible complexity of each species is something modern science has been unable to explain. A Catholic may interpret the book of Genesis literally or as an allegory. However any theory that is believed by a Catholic must meet the following criteria:

1. God created everything out of nothing ("ex nihlo" in Latin)

2. God created an orderly universe (the universe is not a product of chance)

3. God sustained everything in being (everything depends on God for existence)"

Simply put, that's what the Church Teaches, Thiestic Evolution is compatible with Catholicism so there is no need to worry there. Evolution itself is not a Fact. (Metamorphisis isn't evolution, as its the same thing that happens to a specific species with age and is programmed into their genetic Structure, so it can't count as Macro evolution as evolution is the Theory that an Animals changes/mutates over a long period of time due to changes/effects of their surrounding enviroment), Micro Evolution is, at the least argueably a fact. (Differences in Breeds of Dogs, types of a certain species of Insects, such as Wasps, and, as uncomfortable as some people may feel me saying this but, Differences in Races of Humans.)

Also, [url="http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/catholic_creationism.htm"]Source[/url] for those wondering where I got that quote.

[mortify]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1615991' date='Aug 2 2008, 04:08 PM']Before this debate goes between Creationism and Evolution, let me point out that The Church DOES NOT have a Dogma on Creation, not for the past 1500 years, instead it has Three:[/quote]

The Church teaches more than that.

The Church teaches that the first three chapters of Genesis contain narratives of real events, and are not to be understood as mere myth, legend, or symbols for religious truth. It does not mean every sentence has to be literally interpreted, as even the Fathers and Theologians offered various interpretations for *certain* parts, however all Fathers taught that God's creation of man in terms of [b]body[/b] and soul was immediate, not a drawn out process.

[Galloglasses]

True, but that is not 'Dogma' that you are speaking off. Don't get me wrong, I lean in the Creationist direction, (Thankfully, i'm not alone in that belief in real life), I'm just saying these are the 'Dogmas' concerning Evolution. As in the things that can't be questioned or interpreted differently.

[mortify]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1616023' date='Aug 2 2008, 04:54 PM']True, but that is not 'Dogma' that you are speaking off.[/quote]

So in your opinion what is not strictly called "Dogma" is pretty much up for grabs whether it be accepted or rejected by the individual? If this were so there would be no problem in dissenting from the pastoral changes of Vatican II, which was not a dogmatic council. The reality is we are bound to far more than what is strictly defined.

We should also remember that evolution is not dogma either, and so we shouldn't be looking to reinterpret or [i]allegorize [/i] the entire Genesis Account to have it fit with a theory that may change in the future, but this is my personal opinion.

God bless

[Galloglasses]

No, you completely misread, there is Dogma, (The stuff that, as a Catholic, you are required to belief), Doctrine, (Church Teachings that are susceptible to change, but this very, very rarely happens. The Vatican II May not have been Dogmatic, but it was certainly Doctrinal, the individual is not at total Liberty to reject the teaching), then you have normal teaching.

And did you not read my last post? I AM a creationist, I do not think that Genisis should be totally allegorised either, that would a crasy cop out on our part with regards to Scripture, and would give Darwinistic people a field day argueing against it. NOR was I argueing that Evolution was a Dogma either, I was stating that an Individual, AS a Catholic, is free to believe in 'Thiestic Evolution', and that would not go against Church Teachings. Personally, I'm not a totally literal Creationist, but definately a Creationist overall.

God Bless You.

Edited August 2, 2008 by Galloglasses

[Farsight one]

There seems to be a couple misconceptions about evolution here.

1. Evolution is NOT random chance. There is a little random involved in it. We could have had 4 eyes instead of 2. That's random. But for the most part, it most certainly is not random.

2.a. Evolution IS a fact AND a theory. It is both. Evolution is a fact because it is directly observable. The definition of evolution is "a change in the frequency of alleles over time", which most certainly happens and is a fact. The theory part comes into play when trying to explain HOW it happens. It's the same way with gravity. Gravity is a fact because we can see it happen. Exactly HOW it works, though, is the theory.

2.b. And fyi - calling it "just a theory" doesn't mean much. In the world of science, if a theory and a law contradict each other, scientists will throw out the law and keep the theory because theories are better than facts in the scientific world.

[quote]We should also remember that evolution is not dogma either, and so we shouldn't be looking to reinterpret or allegorize the entire Genesis Account to have it fit with a theory that may change in the future, but this is my personal opinion.[/quote]I wouldn't be trying to allegorize Genesis because I always thought it was obvious that it was allegory. Even before I knew the first thing about evolution. Frankly, I think it silly when someone tries to take it literally because I've always thought it to be so obvious.

[Galloglasses]

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1616052' date='Aug 2 2008, 06:32 PM']In the world of science, if a theory and a law contradict each other, scientists will throw out the law and keep the theory because theories are better than facts in the scientific world.[/quote]
Buh?

[Farsight one]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1616055' date='Aug 2 2008, 06:35 PM']Buh?[/quote]Heh...

Yep. That's the way it works. If I recall correctly, that's what they did with Newton's law of gravity when the theory of relativity came around.